Where a Gore presidency will contain Iraq there will be an eagerness in a Bush presidency to settle scores and bring about a Gulf War, Part Two. It will most likely topple Saddam Hussein. – John Hogue (6 November 2000)
Recorded for the HP Bulletin, Bush or Gore? two Presidential Destinies in Prophecy issued on the eve of the last presidential election
I have posted this bulletin exactly one month before national election of 2004. I have chosen this time to blog for the record my prediction for who will become the US president in November. I have been making these presidential predictions since 1968. So far I have predicted the winner in every case. I published the prophecy above four years ago on the eve of the 2000 election. On that day I appeared on Jeff Rense’s nationally syndicated radio show to give a last prophetic word about who was going to win: Democrat Al Gore or Republican George W. Bush. It had remained firmly clear to me that Al Gore would win the election ever since I first stated my prediction on ABC’s “The View” two years earlier on 30 October 1998. Right beside this firm feeling was an equally strong and puzzling premonition growing that this was going to be the first time I predicted the wrong winner. At first I reasoned that premonition to be was a case of oracular jitters over the mounting odds against sustaining a winning streak of eight successes across 32 years for a ninth time; however, as the election date approached I began wondering if another “message” from the future was knocking on the door of perception, and my biases had locked the door. My prediction had evolved into a puzzling, prescient riddle impossible for me to unravel. I reasoned that only events on election day would resolve the conflict in my perception.
I conveyed the crux of this to Rense’s national audience, explaining that divination sometimes is an art wherein one neither understands nor supports the message received–still one must deliver it. I stood by what continued to be my unshakable premonition that Gore was going to win the election by a half-million votes. I accepted an equally certain premonition that I was going to be wrong.
As it turned out, I was right about Gore winning the election by a half-million votes and evidence continues to mount supporting the contention that he won the popular vote in Florida as well. And yet, the voting dispute in Florida completely blind sided me. The result of which led to the US Supreme Court choosing the clear loser by popular vote as America’s next president. In the end, the riddle prophecy was correct. Gore did win, and I “was” wrong. The experience has taught me that my presidential predictions since 1968 are an intuition based on tuning into the heart of the voting majority. The 18th century technicalities of Electoral College law, the cunningness of lawyers, the 50,000 African Americans denied their vote by a Republican Secretary of State of Florida were elements outside of my augury. I had tuned into the essential wish of the voters, not the incompetence of a Florida election official–a Democrat–designing and approving a butterfly ballot so confusing that thousands of voters choosing left-of-center Al Gore technically punched a hole for the right wing Reform Party candidate, Pat Buchanan. That was not their “wish.”
I appeared on Coast to Coast AM with Ian Punnet on 12 November 2000, six days after the dangling chad debate began in Florida, and the future winner of the presidency was in doubt.. Our conversation settled on predicting the destiny of either a Gore or Bush presidency. I told Ian’s national audience that affliction would rule the future scenario of either man’s administration. Clearly I saw greater troubles for the country and a quagmire in Iraq that would spread into a widening war of terrorism if Bush became the president. We will never know if my prediction of a more moderate disaster with four years of Gore was correct because destiny (and a majority of Supreme Court justices) set us down the course of the latter timeline. Unfortunately, many things I said in November and December of 2000 and again around Bush’s inauguration in January 2001 have come to pass. There has been a stagnation of the economy and a recession by 2002:
The US recession will begin. The Bush tax cuts may help it level off for a time, but the recession will deepen by the end of 2001 causing an economic crisis in 2002.
HogueProphecy Bulletin, 21 December 2000:
A “REAL” MILLENNIUM MESSAGE
I predicted as early as August 2000 in writing and on taped and documented radio show appearances that the Bush administration would put American troops on the ground in a major war in the Middle East two years into his presidency. The prophecy implied that the true motivation was a back door, right wing plot to control Iraq’s oil reserves and settle old scores from the previous Bush’s war with Saddam Hussein:
I’ve seen this coming years ago… I always felt that if a Republican was elected next, he would be a moderate Republican, but he would pick a right wing vice president. I thought it would have been a woman and that’s where I was wrong in these prophecies. I thought it would be Elizabeth Dole. She came somewhat close in the fact she actually tried to run this year. But I’ve got to consider that a failed prophecy. [Still], whether it was a man or a women I felt it would be someone who was extremely right wing…If a Bush-Cheney ticket did win, we would probably be in a major Middle East war with Iraq within two years…finishing unfinished business over oil…The oil business connections with the Bush-Cheney families are very strong.
(Laura Lee Online, 9 August 2000)
Bush did initially present himself as a moderate Republican. Then he picked Cheney as his Vice President running mate–an avowed right wing ideologue of the neo-conservative movement. The press grumbled that Cheney, the former CEO of Haliburton Corporation, had too many conflicts of interests to be vice president because of his oil business ties with the Middle East. Perhaps they were right. At present, his former company, Haliburton, monopolized most of the contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
It is a well-known fact that the Bush administration began its military buildup for an Iraqi invasion two years after he was elected. The original plan was to invade Iraq in the late autumn of 2002 rather than early 2003. Bush in October 2002 relented to international pressure giving the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq a little more time to find weapons of mass destruction. A need for more political and diplomatic legitimacy had Bush going through the motions of appearing to make his case for invasion before the world. It was effective. Even most House and Senate Democrats–including Senator Kerry–blithely signed on to a bellicose Bush carte blanche, and gave the president war powers with nary a debate. Kerry and other Democrat legislators who presently condemn the president for rushing to war would like us to forget all the clear and present evidence they dismissed in October 2002 that implicated Bush was hell bent on war in Iraq, for whatever reason he could find or manufacture. But more important than this, the president postponed his invasion until early 2003 not to satisfy the UN, but support a far more valuable authority. There were those Pentagon planners who said they needed time to ship tens of thousands more soldiers for the invasion. The president was in a hurry to ramp up for war, though. He waved off other Pentagon pundits who cautioned the president needed hundreds of thousands more soldiers to invade and maintain postwar Iraq.
We are now in the Middle Eastern war I foresaw as far back as the summer of 2000. Are we in a “second Vietnam quagmire” yet?
Since US forces invaded Iraq early in the new year of 2003, ninety percent of all casualties lost by US and coalition forces so far have happened “after” Iraq was occupied and Saddam Hussein overthrown. On 1 May 2003, the president costumed with suitable flight-suit panache stood on the tarmac of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. He was as close to war zone Iraq as a dozen miles off the coast of San Diego, California, when he declared the Iraq mission accomplished. America took down Saddam Hussein’s regime and his supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with a death toll just under 200 killed in action and several hundred wounded. Exactly 17 months later, the stockpiles of WMD (the grounds for which the war was fought) are no where to be found. The postwar Iraq period has seen the death toll mounting to 1,060 US dead, another 240 coalition dead, the US contractor death count pushing the 100 mark. There are 7,500 US and coalition wounded, 10 to 20,000 Iraqi dead, and signs point to this “liberated” country poised for a break up into three warring factions in a civil war next year.
It waddles and quacks like a quagmire to me. Still, on one prediction I made back in 2000, I will be completely wrong:
G.W. Bush will not be a single term president.
He will win a second term in office. This time his chief lawyer, James Baker, might have to use Gore’s re-count argument from 2000. Bush in 2004 might win a slight majority of the popular vote but lose the electoral vote to Kerry. I am sure Baker’s brace of lawyers will seek a loophole, or manufacture one, to negate Kerry’s electoral college majority. One possible scenario will see the Republicans complaining about e-votes falsely inflated by a computer glitch. They will successfully have these ballots overturned and their man will keep his job in the White House.
I first began saying for the record that Bush would win a second term on Whitley Strieber’s Dreamland cyber radio show ten months ago.
Here is an extract recorded on 2 December 2003. It is important to note that at the time Ralph Nader was not in the presidential campaign. The political campaigns of the Democratic and Republican parties were gearing up for the Iowa caucus and the first presidential primary in New Hampshire. I added the brackets today for clarification:
I think it will be a very close election again. I think Dean will be the man. Although Dean will be hamstrung by the old guard of the Democrat party who will not support him and will keep it rather divisive. I think Dean will be the man they choose [because] he has the best chance for defeating George Bush. But it’s also likely that one of the old crony Democrats might be running too…
Ralph Nader I think is about to put his endorsement in with Dean. And he’s already stated that he’s not going to run for the Green Party this year. I think he would run if Dean is denied his lead by the Democrat power system. Then I think he would step in.
Nader did step in as an independent candidate without the Green Party’s support when Howard Dean’s notorious Iowa caucus “screech” speech derailed his presidential campaign. The Dean people blamed the Kerry campaign for playing dirty tricks in Iowa and later in New Hampshire. One of these “tricks” purportedly had Democrat party bosses pressing their contacts in the media to misrepresent Dean’s Iowa caucus speech in a way that made him look like a screaming maniac. For a week afterwards, the TV press ran 700 replays of Dean trying to shout over the deafening cheers of his followers. What the microphone savvy press “overlooked” was Dean holding a commonly used TV mike by public speakers. It negates background noise, so the mike made him sound and look like an idiot shouting at the top of his lungs to a modestly cheering crowd. Only after his presidential campaign was virtually dead in the water, did the press admit to a technically flawed overstatement of Dean’s screech. The contrite press began replaying only a few examples of the video with the real sound levels in the meeting hall. The actual crowd noise was so thunderous that one could not even hear Dean trying to shout over the din.
After what I said about Dean’s potential undermining by the Democratic powers-that-be, Whitley Strieber asked me whether George Bush would win a second term. I said that he would despite what has come to pass in many of my previous predictions in 2000. His popularity would survive the faltering economy I foresaw in 2002 through 2003, because “the economy would start improving enough in 2004…to allow George W. Bush to squeak by for a second term.” Then I added:
When I say the economy’s improving, it’s probably not going to be that good [but] there’s a [state] of denial descending over America that is being manipulated quite brilliantly by the current administration. And my sense is that [at the time of the 2004 election day] things in Iraq will be…terrible.
Ten months after saying the above, the economy in 2004 has slightly improved, though it is still quite sluggish. The denial is deepening too. The Bush administration is repetitively reminding us just how much better Iraq is getting. However, the British “and” CIA intelligence reports of September 2004 forewarn America may lose the peace in Iraq. Whole regions of the country are now “no go” zones for US soldiers and contractors. Hostage taking of contractors is at an all-time high. A recent CIA intelligence report in its worse case scenario predicts a 3 to 1 chance of a plunge into a three-way Iraqi civil war by next year. Still, despite this, and President Bush’s poor showing in the first presidential debate, I still predict that the collective denial of Americans will deepen. On 2 November, more than half the country will still believe President Bush can lead the country better than Kerry in Iraq and the war on terror.
Let us now move three months forward from my statements on Strieber’s show in December 2003 to those made on Mitch Battros’ Earthchanges TV in March of 2004. Then it was clear that the powers of the Democratic party had pushed John F. Kerry to the forefront as their presidential candidate apparent. I assessed the consequences of Kerry’s new supremacy in the following statement:
We are seeing [the Democrats] repeat the mistakes the Republicans made in 1996 when they went against Clinton in his second term. [In 1994] Clinton [like Bush] was also in a lot of trouble after the end of his first term… [yet] I said [Clinton] would win. People [in 1994] were laughing me off radio shows saying ‘You’ve got to be kidding.’ They said, ‘There’s no way William Jefferson Clinton can win a second term…’ I said that [the Republicans] would pick Bob Dole because of the [Republican Party's] crony power system… And [I added that] Bob Dole, although he’s a fine man, is not presidential enough to win against Clinton.
I believe that the Democrats have now chosen their version of Bob Dole to run against George W. Bush.
Six months later, the presidential campaign of 2004 looks ever more like 1996. This may lead to an election result that is not as close as I currently predict. Bush, like Clinton against Dole in 1996, may win by a margin of the popular vote as high as five percent.
With that said, today I still hold to my prediction that 2004 will become one of the closest presidential races in history, with no less than three disputed states requiring a re-count. Bush’s poor showing in the first and the next two presidential debates will decimate his ten point lead in the polls from September. October will also narrow the race with bad news about rising oil prices, and a drop in the stock market. This will stretch the credibility ever thinner of any veil of improvement trying to hide the ugly face of this American economy. Also, Iraq is unraveling, and fast, but the public perception of the Bush Administration’s incompetent waging the war will not gain enough momentum before the elections to unseat him from office.
I will say this, after the elections on 2 November, the coming two months of warfare in Iraq will be the bloodiest seen. It will get worse after a railroaded Iraq election attempt in early 2005. By inauguration day in late January, a slight majority of Americans will see President Bush sworn into office for a second term and ponder, “What in the world have we done?”
WHY J. F. KERRY WILL LOSE IN 2004
Image matters in this ever more media-shallow American society. Kerry’s dull “Bob Dole” qualities make him an unexciting replacement to Bush. Bush might not be able to put two words together without a prompter but he’s folksy. Kerry puts too many words together and appears ponderous and pedantic. He needs a timer light to keep his statements pithy, as the first debate showed. Bush’s inarticulate cowboy campaign appeals to the shoot’em first and think later qualities of the average American mind
The Democratic party chose their man motivated not by what he would do, but because he is “anybody but” Bush. This is fundamentally flawed reasoning. Clinton beat the last Bush because he presented himself as a “positive” alternate. Negative alternatives never win presidential elections against an incumbent as Dole’s run as the Republican’s version of “anybody but Clinton” proved. The Republicans learned their lesson, the Democrats, as usual, have not. They run the real danger of dying out as a political party in the next four years if they do not heed their messengers of reform, like Howard Dean. Bush will win a second term because people will vote for the incumbent if they believe, or are made to believe, his policies improve the economy. It also helps Bush that both candidates come across with equally vague and similar sounding foreign and domestic policies. When a clear choice between candidates becomes the first casualty of a political campaign, Americans must pick their next president based on the lowest and most infantile denominator: likeability.
Ah shucks, folks, we all know who’s more chummy and who’s more like a mummy in this race.
Bush will not lose the election because of Iraq, although his Iraqi adventure is heading for an oil sinkhole on fire. His administration effectively manipulates and suspends the short term memory of Americans and their media. The American people want to believe things will get better in Iraq, so the White House postpones facing reality by spinning special dates for giving democracy to the Iraqis, such as 1 July 2003. The Bush administration knows well that things as promised definitely did not get better this summer after the American “viceroy” of Iraq, Paul Bremer, handed power over to the Iraqi provisional government of Prime Minister Allawi.
Time for a new deadline.
Again the Bush administration’s rhetoric implies a rosier future, and a better Iraq after elections in January 2005. The reality will be a civil war. Not to worry, that is after the presidential elections in November. There is still time to persuade enough Americans voters on 2 November to stay the course and reelect President Bush to complete the job in Iraq.
Finally, I will predict that the campaign and election of 2004 will go down in history as the most polarizing national election since the one held on the eve of the American Civil War. The election of 1860 divided the nation into the “blue” and liberal Northerners who believed in abolishing slavery and upholding a federal union. The Southerners became the “gray” Confederates who upheld and fought for the conservative notion of states’ rights and the tradition of slavery.
This time the election of 2004 will solidify a divide of the nation between the “blue” and the “red.”
Half the country, which is generally “blue” liberal and urban, harbor a near hysterical fear and hatred of the president. They are willing to choose any candidate presented by the blue party bosses that waddles like a president, or quacks like a president. Their motto is:
“Anybody but Bush!”
Half the country, which is generally “red” conservative and rural, harbor a near anal retentive fear and hatred of liberals in power. They will stand firm with their red president no matter what messes he steps into with his flight suit’s boot. Their motto is
“My Bush, right or wrong!”
Are we back to the future of civil war? Stay tuned for my election eve Halloween assessment of what potential future presidencies we can expect from Kerry or Bush.
(02 October 2004)